<span>In one of the first posts on this blog, I compared Lincoln’s two-minute address with the two-hour oration by Edward Everett on the same occasion. Today the former is universally regarded as one of the most famous speeches in American history; the latter is largely forgotten. </span>Indeed, Everett himself recognized the genius of Lincoln’s speech in a note that he sent to the President shortly after the event:
“I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes.”
In a speech that was comprised of only 10 sentences and 272 words, Lincoln was able to strike a chord that would resonate not only with his audience, but one that would resonate through time. Why is this short speech so memorable?
First, it is important to remember the context. America was in the midst of a bloody civil war. Union troops had only four months earlier defeated Confederate troops at the Battle of Gettysburg which is widely recognized as the turning point in the war. The stated purpose of Lincoln’s speech was to dedicate a plot of land that would become Soldier’s National Cemetery to honour the fallen. However, the Civil War still raged and Lincoln realized that he also had to inspire the people to continue the fight.
<span>Below is the text of the Gettysburg Address, interspersed with my thoughts on what made it so memorable.</span>
Answer:
The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, was an intellectual and cultural movement in the eighteenth century that emphasized reason over superstition and science over blind faith. Empiricism promotes the idea that knowledge comes from experience and observation of the world.
<h3>
<u>PLEASE</u><u> MARK</u><u> ME</u><u> BRAINLIEST</u><u>.</u></h3>
Answer:
Cherokee tribes
wyandot tribes
Explanation:
The British colonists were supported at various times by the Iroquois, Catawba, and Cherokee tribes, and the French colonists were supported by Wabanaki Confederacy member tribes Abenaki and Mi'kmaq, and the Algonquin, Lenape, Ojibwa, Ottawa, Shawnee, and Wyandot tribes.
If the two territories had formed different states, the indigenous population would have greater political representation, and the state of Oklahoma would have a smaller indigenous population.
<h3>Why would the indigenous population have greater political representation?</h3>
- Because the state would have indigenous political representatives.
- Because the state government is made up of indigenous people.
- Because the political and social structure of the state would be geared towards the social well-being of the indigenous people.
The separation of the state of Oklahoma into two states would be very beneficial for the indigenous peoples as they would have greater political, social, and even economic relevance in the state formed by the indigenous territories, which would allow for greater representation at the national level.
Thus, Indians could structure their state by considering the social resources important to their tribes and choosing the best way to maintain their rights and duties as American citizens who live within the traditions of Native peoples.
Learn more about indigenous peoples:
brainly.com/question/27791311
#SPJ1
Answer:
Mill argues in favour of legal and social equality between men and women. He writes that 'the legal subordination of one sex to the other' is 'wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement' (p. 1). The Subjection of Women was published in 1869.
Explanation:
can i have brainliest
